linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate suppression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:34:53 +0200
From:   Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Dirtying, failing memop: don't indicate
 suppression

[...]
>>>
>>> The only question is, do we need to change the suppression parameter in
>>> access_guest_with_key
>>>
>>>     (mode != GACC_STORE) || (idx == 0)
>>>
>>> to also check for prot != PROT_TYPE_KEYC
>>> ? I think we do not need this as we have checked other reasons before.
> 
> Yes, it is not necessary, the control flow is such that a protection exception
> implies that is due to keys.
>>
>> To me this measure looks like a last resort option and the POP doesn't state a 100% what is to be done. Some instructions can mandate suppression instead of termination according to the architects.
>>
>> My intuition tells me that if we are in a situation where this would happen then we would be much better off just doing it by hand (i.e. in the instruction emulation code) and not letting this function decide.
> 
> For the instructions we currently need to emulate in KVM we should be fine.
> So the question is what's best for the future and for instructions emulated by user space.
> Upward in the call stack (including user space), we don't know the failing address,
> which complicates handling it in the emulation code.
> You could chop up the memop in page chunks to find out, but that might have other issues.
> 
> Since this behavior is very implicit and easy to overlook maybe we should document it
> in the description of the memop ioctl?

Yeah, properly documenting this is the least we can do.